MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328060268 · doi:10.1177/0733464814566678

Physical and Cognitive Impacts of Digital Games on Older Adults

2015· review· en· W2328060268 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationBalance (ability)CognitionGerontologyPsychologyPhysical activityPreferred walking speedApplied psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to examine the physical and cognitive impacts of digital games on older adults. We conducted five independent meta-analyses by reporting 58 effect sizes generated from 36 studies. Results suggested that playing digital games is effective in improving older adults' physical balance (g = 0.67), balance confidence (g = 0.46), functional mobility (g = 0.53), executive function (g = 0.76), and processing speed (g = 0.54). Based on the results of heterogeneity analysis, we conducted moderator analyses for physical balance and processing speed. Key findings included the following: Playing digital games can not only improve the physical balance of older adults living in community but also those living in nursing homes; the relationship between age of participants or amount of time of gameplay and effect size is weak and the direction of the relationship is not definitive.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it